Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Difference between RE and UV Topcon
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:29 am    Post subject: Difference between RE and UV Topcon Reply with quote

I'm rather new to Topcon lenses. I have found a few on an online local secondhand market place.
There seem to be two kinds of topcon lenses. One with UV and others with RE.
The UV ones seem to be offered more frequent. What is the difference. Any optical quality differences ? Other Mount ?....
Wich ones are the ones to go after ? It must be adaptable to Fuji X-E1, Nex or M43.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The RE Topcors have the Exakta mount and are adaptable. The UV Topcors are completely different, they have a proprietary mount and fitted a range of leaf shutter SLRs. They have no aperture rings and no adapters are available. The UVs were budget lenses, not upto the superlative standard of the REs.

So in short, collect REs, ignore UVs.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The RE Topcors have the Exakta mount and are adaptable. The UV Topcors are completely different, they have a proprietary mount and fitted a range of leaf shutter SLRs. They have no aperture rings and no adapters are available. The UVs were budget lenses, not upto the superlative standard of the REs.

So in short, collect REs, ignore UVs.

Thank you for the very clear answer !


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you have NEX and have a set of these lenses, you may consider this adapter Click here to see on Ebay.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
If you have NEX and have a set of these lenses, you may consider this adapter Click here to see on Ebay.

Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

asterinex wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
If you have NEX and have a set of these lenses, you may consider this adapter Click here to see on Ebay.

Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


Read your initial question, Calvin answered very properly and made a helpful comment about a rare adapter.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another (not so helpful ) solution is to get an UV to RE adapter ( made by Topcon and pretty rare ) and then stack with with Exakta to camera adapter. The trouble is, not so easy to find the UV to RE adapter, bought one years ago without knowing the use of it, until one day...


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cambug wrote:
Another (not so helpful ) solution is to get an UV to RE adapter ( made by Topcon and pretty rare ) and then stack with with Exakta to camera adapter. The trouble is, not so easy to find the UV to RE adapter, bought one years ago without knowing the use of it, until one day...

Thx fellows , I just bought 2 RE lenses8). See http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1339889.html#1339889


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

asterinex wrote:
Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


After comparison UV Topcor 28mm f4 vs. Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2.8 , I doubt that image quality from UV Topcor lenses are inferior.
That's why I wonder if you can judge Image Quality without any comparison/seen between UV lenses and RE Topcor Lenses.

Best regards


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

convert1 wrote:
asterinex wrote:
Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


After comparison UV Topcor 28mm f4 vs. Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2.8 , I doubt that image quality from UV Topcor lenses are inferior.
That's why I wonder if you can judge Image Quality without any comparison/seen between UV lenses and RE Topcor Lenses.

Best regards

No , I don't know.
I went further on the opinion of iangreenhalgh1 (2nd post in this thread). He said that the RE's are better.
I just believed him. Sorry Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I`m not sure that these lenses are budget lenses. I bought few of them with the respective cam. These lenses are really of very good make and styling.

Below few samples:

http://forum.mflenses.com/topcon-unirex-and-topcor-f4-28mm-t24624,highlight,%2Btopcon.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-uv-lenses-t23885,highlight,%2Btopcor.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-4-200-t20343,highlight,%2Btopcor.html

Wink


PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Easy to you Rolf, you makes any lens to GOLD. Nice to see how a good photographer can save an orphan lens reputation Smile


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Camera:35 reviews of several UV Topcors showed a lot less line pairs per mm than the RE Auto-Topcors.

The UV lens designs had to work through the rather tiny (00 size?) leaf shutter in the matching cameras. Big compromise, biggest hit was lens speed. (The Exakta mount is already "too small", and the UV mount is worse in that respect.)


PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How much worse did the uv topcors test? Usually manufacturers make cuts in mechanics and build over glass. It’s all speculation but I would think the uv topcor glass should be good but prices low as they are difficult to adapt and therefore limited market. Even then this would be 1960s to 1970s budget which compared to modern lenses would be premium. The day a adapter becomes readily available I think the prices will rise.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been threads by people on the UV lenses, and while not quite as good as the RE they are still quite good. Since adapter issues exist they can be purchased quite inexpensively. I personally don't have any (yet!). If I had an adapter I would not hesitate to try them.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
How much worse did the uv topcors test? Usually manufacturers make cuts in mechanics and build over glass. It’s all speculation but I would think the uv topcor glass should be good but prices low as they are difficult to adapt and therefore limited market. Even then this would be 1960s to 1970s budget which compared to modern lenses would be premium. The day a adapter becomes readily available I think the prices will rise.


Some UV lenses are quite good. I've tested eg. both UV and RE versions of the 100 and 135 mm lenses here:

forum.mflenses.com/comparison-of-topcor-135mm-re-and-uv-lenses-t77370.html
forum.mflenses.com/uv-topcor-100mm-f4-on-aps-c-t72494.html

I would say that UV lenses are more than usable, particularly if their prices are part of the consideration. I've tested the 28, 35, 53, 100, 135 and 200 mm UV lenses. The links can be found in the 135 mm thread.